Trump Not Guilty

Excon · Feb 12, 2020

haymarket said:
Not one thing you said there changes the reality that witnesses were barred in the Senate trial. Not one thing.

So you again establish you know not of what you speak and do not pay attention to the information you are given. Figures.
1. Witness testimony was heard by video.
2. The Senate has no obligation to hear from witnesses that the House didn't.

The House accused on the information they had and the Senate judge it on that same information.

haymarket said:
As to McConnell quote. You will have to excuse me [...]

No. I do not have to, nor will I excuse you for not knowing relevant and factual information that has been in the public sphere and destroys your nonsense.

haymarket said:
All 15 impeachment trial - judicial and presidential - in our history have had witnesses. The precedent was broken with the Trump trial and it is a stain forever on justice and the Senate,

You are spewing nonsense.
They have not had witnesses in this manner. See quote.

All you are doing is complaining for the sake of uncomplaining. Nothing you have said changes that.

marke · Feb 12, 2020

haymarket said:
The House managers WERE NOT allowed to call any witnesses in the Senate Trial and the Senate voted to prohibit them.

I like the way that turned out. Schiff refused to hear the pleas from republicans in the House and then he gets similarly snubbed in the Senate. Sometimes what goes around comes around.

marke · Feb 12, 2020

haymarket said:
Not guilty is not a finding of innocence. That is simply the hard cold facts.

Better than that NOT GUILTY is also not a finding of guilt.

marke · Feb 12, 2020

Risky Thicket said:
:2rofll:

I'm with you. There is a lot to cheer about in Trump's ACQUITTAL.

OpportunityCost · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
You are making no sense. I am not arguing both sides. I do not even know where you get that absurd claim other than you want us to forget your bad error asserting about the FISA courts .

Of course it is a legal event. And of course it is political as it involves politicians. The two ARE NOT mutually exclusive. This is NOT a binary choice.

People who understand how government works know the reality of it.

And you should learn the difference between an acquittal and a jury finding the accused as INNOCENT. There was plenty of evidence and jury finding that Trump was guilty. The 2/3 number was not achieved but there was plenty of feeling that he was guilty. Heck, even Republicans who voted to acquit him admitted he had done wrong.

That's pretty much how jury nullification works.

Not that you will ever admit the dishonest arguments but you shift your argument from one to the other relentlessly. But, it doesn't matter. Trump was acquitted, per the Senate declaration of the vote. Its burns, doesn't it?

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

Excon said:
So you again establish you know not of what you speak and do not pay attention to the information you are given. Figures.

Leading off with a personal insult. That already puts you in a very strong intellectual position. :doh:roll:

1. Witness testimony was heard by video.
2. The Senate has no obligation to hear from witnesses that the House didn't.

And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.
And if a Senator or the House managers wanted to call witnesses like John Bolton who had information which came to light AFTER the House voted impeachment but was still considered important and vital? No way could they do that.

No. I do not have to, nor will I excuse you for not knowing relevant and factual information that has been in the public sphere and destroys your nonsense.

When someone provides a quote in debate it is their 100% complete and total obligation to provide a source for it. You did NOT do this. It was your failure as a debater.

They have not had witnesses in this manner. See quote.

The McConnell statement is a lie. And you fell for it because of political affiliation. All 15 previous impeachment trials before the Senate had witnesses.

PolitiFact | Yes, every past impeachment trial included witnesses. Baldwin hits mark with Trump-related claim

But the 15 people who faced a full trial in the Senate all saw witnesses called.

We rate this claim True.

You insulting me and failing to observe proper debate protocols does not make your argument which is based solely on denial of reality and falling for partisan lies.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

marke said:
I like the way that turned out. Schiff refused to hear the pleas from republicans in the House and then he gets similarly snubbed in the Senate. Sometimes what goes around comes around.

And it became the first impeachment trial in the Senate that did not have witnesses. So much for the first 15 and precedent.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

marke said:
Better than that NOT GUILTY is also not a finding of guilt.

48 Senators did make a finding of guilt. But the jury was fixed and rigged to acquit Trump and protect him from further incriminating testimony.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

OpportunityCost said:
That's pretty much how jury nullification works.

Not that you will ever admit the dishonest arguments but you shift your argument from one to the other relentlessly. But, it doesn't matter. Trump was acquitted, per the Senate declaration of the vote. Its burns, doesn't it?

Actually it is how rabid partisan politics works when Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate and he is trying to protect his superior.

OpportunityCost · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
Actually it is how rabid partisan politics works when Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate and he is trying to protect his superior.

Nah, that's what you tell yourself so you can keep crying about it. It was all political theatre. Democrats are scared out of their minds Trump will win 4 more years.

Excon · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
Leading off with a personal insult. That already puts you in a very strong intellectual position.

Still confusing statements of fact with personal insults. Figures.

haymarket said:
And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.

Irrelevant to the point made. The Senate heard from witnesses by video. (That is called having witnesses.)
The Senate decided they didn't need to hear anymore or from any other witness. That is their choice. If you do not like it, tough ****.

haymarket said:
And if a Senator or the House managers wanted to call witnesses like John Bolton who had information which came to light AFTER the House voted impeachment but was still considered important and vital? No way could they do that.

Nothing came to light after the fact.
And if the House wanted to hear form Bolton they should have ensured they has his testimony prior to going to the Senate.

haymarket said:
When someone provides a quote in debate it is their 100% complete and total obligation to provide a source for it. You did NOT do this. It was your failure as a debater.

iLOL What a stupid reply in regards to the point made. No one said I didn't have an obligation to support what I quote.
The point was not excusing you for not knowing relevant and factual information that has been in the public sphere and destroys your nonsense.
You showed you did not know the subject material enough to even be discussing it. Not initially providing a link to information I assumed you would know is certainly a bad assumption on my part, but it has no relevance to you not knowing that information which has been in the public sphere. That is all on you.

haymarket said:
The McConnell statement is a lie.

Wrong.
His statement is regarding a specific set of circumstances which your link in no way refutes.

Again.

They have not had witnesses in this manner. See quote.

Or do you also not understand what "in this manner" meant?

As the source put it.

"Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation," he said. "We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent, particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue."
Link

haymarket said:
You insulting me and failing to observe proper debate protocols does not make your argument which is based solely on denial of reality and falling for partisan lies.

So many false claims. iLOL Just you being wrong as usual.

marke · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.
And if a Senator or the House managers wanted to call witnesses like John Bolton who had information which came to light AFTER the House voted impeachment but was still considered important and vital? No way could they do that.

Schiff refused to allow republicans to call witnesses in the House. Schiff refused to allow witnesses to answer questions he did not want the witnesses answering in the House. Schiff refused to allow republicans to call the whistleblower or to allow questions which may touch on the whistleblower while stupidly maintaining the lie that he did not know who the whistleblower was. For example, Schiff refused to allow Vindman to name the name of one of the several people he leaked the call to because Schiff did not want the name of the whistleblower outed. We know from that the whistleblower was not Vindman's brother, who was named, nor was it Eisenberg, who was also named. It was the fact that Vindman and Schiff protected the one name to protect the whistleblower's identity that proved both Vindman and Schiff knew who the whistleblower was and that Vindman is the one who fed to the whistleblower the crapped up opinionated 3rd hand account of the phone call.

marke · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
L
And if a Senator wanted to cross examine those video witnesses????? They were unable to dp that.
And if a Senator or the House managers wanted to call witnesses like John Bolton who had information which came to light AFTER the House voted impeachment but was still considered important and vital? No way could they do that.

Schiff could have subpoenaed Bolton in the House but he refused. He also could have subpoenaed the whistleblower but he refused. How are those witnesses to be heard if Schiff will not allow them to testify? They cannot be heard.

marke · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
When someone provides a quote in debate it is their 100% complete and total obligation to provide a source for it. You did NOT do this. It was your failure as a debater.
The McConnell statement is a lie. And you fell for it because of political affiliation. All 15 previous impeachment trials before the Senate had witnesses.
PolitiFact | Yes, every past impeachment trial included witnesses. Baldwin hits mark with Trump-related claim
You insulting me and failing to observe proper debate protocols does not make your argument which is based solely on denial of reality and falling for partisan lies.

The House impeachment was not like other impeachments in history. Schiff suspended due process. He did not allow the defense to call witnesses. He did not allow the republicans to cross examine his witnesses thoroughly. He did not allow the defendant counsel representation or the opportunity to defend himself against lying testimony of biased witnesses. There was absolutely no House vote authorizing Schiff to conduct impeachment hearings in the intelligence committee instead of the traditional judiciary committee, and the entire process was political and one-sided from beginning to end.

And sobbing Schiff wants now to complain about the lack of fairness? What a moron.

marke · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
And it became the first impeachment trial in the Senate that did not have witnesses. So much for the first 15 and precedent.

Schiff dismissed due process at the outset, setting the stage for the first unlawful ,one-sided, totally politically-driven impeachment process in history.

marke · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
48 Senators did make a finding of guilt. But the jury was fixed and rigged to acquit Trump and protect him from further incriminating testimony.

What are you saying, that a minority of jurors prove a defendant is guilty by their minority opinion? Does that not make Roe vs Wade an example also since a minority of justices declared that abortion should be illegal?

marke · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
Actually it is how rabid partisan politics works when Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate and he is trying to protect his superior.

Schiff in the House is pulling out all the stops, dismissing due process, suspending the rights of the accused, refusing key witnesses from testifying and then declaring Trump guilty by accusation. That makes him a servant of the devil if McConnell is supposedly serving only the President by refusing to follow the new perverted House rules and process.

dixon01767 · Feb 13, 2020

haymarket said:
Abuse of power and then trying to cover it up by thwarting the investigations of Congress were the crimes.

Those aren't crimes.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

OpportunityCost said:
Nah, that's what you tell yourself so you can keep crying about it. It was all political theatre. Democrats are scared out of their minds Trump will win 4 more years.

In four more years the State Department will not just be demoralized and weakened but perhaps destroyed for all practical purposes.

In four more years the Defense Department will not just be demoralized and hollowed out but perhaps weakened to endanger the security of the United States.

In four more years our collective Intelligence Agencies will see an exodus of talent rivaling Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt.

And the source of all this devastation will be Donald Trump who has shown no respect for checks and balances and seeks to create his office to that rivaling the power of his buddy Putin in Russia.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

Excon said:
Still confusing statements of fact with personal insults.

Nothing you said there changes the facts that witnesses were not allowed by a vote controlled by Republicans doing the bidding of Mitch McConnell who was in turn doing the bidding of Donald Trump - the accused who was on trial.

And nothing you said there changes the facts that in every single impeachment trial held before the Senate be it a judge or president - witness were heard during the trial.

And nothing you said changes the fact that the weasel words that you fell for from McConnell who attempted to pass off a sham trial as perfectly normal and keeping with Senate precedent when it actually was a disaster of failed justice.

And nothing you said there changes the fact that Donald Trump is severely weakening our checks and balances and is testing the limits of his authority with an eye on becoming a tyrant as Republicans in the Senate and House have been emasculated and publicly will not rebuke him no matter what absurd things he does.

You can attack me all you want. It is like water on a ducks back and means nothing to me.I happen to love this country and the American people and watching people make excuses for the destruction of our government is a sad sad thing to witness.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

marke said:
Schiff refused to allow republicans to call witnesses in the House.

Republicans did have witnesses before the House.

For example, Schiff refused to allow Vindman to name the name of one of the several people he leaked the call to because Schiff did not want the name of the whistleblower outed. We know from that the whistleblower was not Vindman's brother, who was named, nor was it Eisenberg, who was also named. It was the fact that Vindman and Schiff protected the one name to protect the whistleblower's identity that proved both Vindman and Schiff knew who the whistleblower was and that Vindman is the one who fed to the whistleblower the crapped up opinionated 3rd hand account of the phone call.

The only reason Trump and his supporters wanted the whistle blower was to extract revenge upon the person and destroy the career like he is currently trying to do with Vindman and others.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

marke said:
Schiff could have subpoenaed Bolton in the House but he refused. He also could have subpoenaed the whistleblower but he refused. How are those witnesses to be heard if Schiff will not allow them to testify? They cannot be heard.

The content of the Bolton book was not revealed until the matter was already before the Senate and post impeachment vote in the House.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

marke said:
The House impeachment was not like other impeachments in history. Schiff suspended due process. He did not allow the defense to call witnesses. He did not allow the republicans to cross examine his witnesses thoroughly. He did not allow the defendant counsel representation or the opportunity to defend himself against lying testimony of biased witnesses. There was absolutely no House vote authorizing Schiff to conduct impeachment hearings in the intelligence committee instead of the traditional judiciary committee, and the entire process was political and one-sided from beginning to end.

And sobbing Schiff wants now to complain about the lack of fairness? What a moron.

You cry a river of phony crocodile tears because Trump was not allowed all the elements of a defense during trial in the House proceeding. That is what the trial is for before the Senate. The House acts similar to a Grand Jury hading down an indictment and acted totally properly.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

marke said:
What are you saying, that a minority of jurors prove a defendant is guilty by their minority opinion? Does that not make Roe vs Wade an example also since a minority of justices declared that abortion should be illegal?

Roe was a Supreme Court decision. Trump was on trial before the Senate. Those are two very different things and an attempt to equate the two is intellectually dishonest at best.

haymarket · Feb 13, 2020

marke said:
Schiff in the House is pulling out all the stops, dismissing due process, suspending the rights of the accused, refusing key witnesses from testifying and then declaring Trump guilty by accusation. That makes him a servant of the devil if McConnell is supposedly serving only the President by refusing to follow the new perverted House rules and process.

Again, you confuse a trial where those rights are held by the defendant with the House handing down an impeachment charge much like a Grand Jury hands down an indictment.